thank you. >> chairman nolan: thank you. next speaker. >> patricia aguilar. >> hello. i'm -- burke has been saying because he has outlined what is the problematic in the process of the following of what needs to be done. i'm just reviewing something that was done in 2008, and agreed to that these three stops that are proposed to be eliminated actually form a transit -- for -- and glenview, hub for many students of -- middle school. there were any other passenger who wants to use that particular line,ijcayi>

get themselves home, that includes tourists too. one of the interesting things is that our voting is one of those area -- right in that area there, and has been ever single year. >> chairman nolan: thank you. >> wilson habib. he's the last person who has turned in a speaker card. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i know that whatever i say, it is not going to change your mi mind. but i've been serving san francisco for the last more than 10 years. i've been taking people to hospitals, i've been taking people to, you know, your family, your family members, to whatever they want to go.

proudly serving the san francisco for more than 10 years. but in return, what i've been waiting -- the waiting list more than eight years. in return what i got is nothing. we offer mta more than the company -- what the company offered. i don't know why -- why mta doesn't want to take the offer. i mean why is mta really against cab drivers who is always serving every day the san franciscans. i mean the voters have to finally decide this. >> chairman nolan: thank you. >> david pilpel. >> david pilpel. regarding the 37 line, there is a complicated history on that. i would encourage you to ask the

director ris kin to put that in a memo to the board explaining what's happened and what is proposed to change there. i've commented before on the new transit shelters. and i've asked to no success but will try again for the status of the transition from the old shelters to the new shelters and in particular why there's no muni -- no next muni sign at third and market, balboa park station and 19th and hallway. id point out on the bart plus agreement i don't believe you've gotten a memo on this yet. there is some proposal at staff level to discontinue that instrument. i believe that's a decision of this board to make. and that there's been a hearing on that, and you should get a more full report and we should discuss that at the next meeting. i'd also ask you to consider and the public to consider the level of rhetoric on -- issues like taxis. it's a very complicated policy

matter but we should not try to make it as personal as much as possible. >> chairman nolan: that will conclude the public comment period. >> it does appear that somebody else -- >> chairman nolan: come ahead please. >> my name is paul fernández. i've been a cab driver for 28 years. i'm number 505 on the medallion list. apparently i'm going to get screwed out of that medallion. i was also on the s medallion list. i was no. 50 on the list. 50 were given out. and i got screwed out of that medallion too. i don't know how. you know, i've been working a long time, driving a cab. i can't do anything else at this point. you know, i'm 64 years old. not much i can change in my life

now. you know, so giving the medallions to the corporations is bull. thanks. >> chairman nolan: thank you. that will conclude the public comment. i'd like to add a couple of points. we thought originally this was going to be a date for taxi items but they were not ready to go and that was noticed properly as of last thursday or friday when the agenda came out. secondly, the stuff about the cabs, the unlicensed cabs, i noticed with great interest that the california puc is issued cease and desist orders for all three companies. we're supportive of that effort. i don't know why, with the cease and desist order appears like almost nothing has happened. we will át back with the taxi issues on november -- what is it? november 20. the issues with the list and those kind of things will be

there at that point. so, okay. thank you members of the board. we're not allowed to take action on this at this point but we have a closed session coming up. is there a motion to do that? >> directors at this point it's appropriate for a motion to conduct a closed session. >> second. >> all in favor say aye. >> ayes. >> (the mta is in >> there was no discussion of anticipated litigation, directors. it will be appropriate for a motion to disclose or not disclose. >> motion not to disclose is. >> i'll second. >> all in favor say aye. >> ayes. >> we are adjourned in memory of reggie mcray. thank you.

>> it is my pleasure to introduce our moderator this evening, professor almondover. he joined the uc davis school of law in 2004, following a clerkship with judge cal braise of the united states court of appeals for the second circuit. interest include election law, administrative law, statutory interpretation, constitutional law and property and natural resources law. he is a resident of san

francisco's mission district. we are honored to work chris almendorf. [ applause ] >> thank you very much and thank you to all of the candidates who are here today. we're very fortunate to be joined by six candidates and what i hope will soon be seven. all of the candidates have agreed to ask their supporters to be respectful of other candidates and the audience and to maintain quiet during the forum. i ask you to respect that commitment. every aspect of this forum will be equally fair to all participating candidates. as everyone here knows candidate debates are often limited to latitudinal appears and personal attack. our debate focuses on critical areas of policy disagreement among the leading candidates. so this end the league of women voters of san francisco and the san francisco public press

working with researchers at uc davis, developed an issue position survey for the supervisorial candidates. the candidates were asked to state whether they support or opposite 43 specific polices or policy proposals. many of which have recently divided the board of supervisors. as the candidates here tonight, london breed, julian davis, hope johnson, andrew resignato and thea selby answered. christina olague has not answered any of the questions. the survey responses were provided to team of uc hasteings ings students and representatives of league of women voters, who drew up the questions for tonight's debate. the results of the candidate survey are used by the san francisco public press to create a non-partisan voter guide that summarizes where the

candidates stand on the issue and will be available on the website soon. meanwhile hvnnjp. preview you may pick up a copy of the current issue of the san francisco public press at the table in the back of the room, which has a fold out summarizing the candidates' position. a little bit about the format of this evening's event. each question will be directed to three candidates or in some cases two. each of these candidates will have one minute to respond. following the named candidates' responses, other candidates may elect to use one of their three discretionary time cards, which they have all been provided. to speak to the question for one minute as well. we ask that after the candidate uses the card, they deposit the card in the basket in front of them, so each candidate, in fact, uses the card on only three occasions. the timekeeper in the first row

will hold up a yellow card to signify to the speaking candidate that they have time remanning to peak and a red card signifies time to stop. because most of the questions for tonight's debate are based on issues survey, the candidates who completed the survey will receive a few more questions than the candidates who did not. i would like to thank the sponsors of today's sponsor forum including the university of california-san francisco, hastings college of law, [wo-uflt/] and our media partner sfgtv. we're fortunate to have such an impressive field of candidates. i will begin with the questions. the first question is for miss breed. mr. davis, and mr. resignato.

and for the benefit of the audience, i will also project the questions on the screen. please explain your position on whether or under what conditions the san francisco parks and recreation department should be parented to lease park facilitis to food vendors and other commercial enterprises? miss breed? >> hi. london breed. i think that what we see now in the recreation -- i'm sorry, what is the time limit on each of these questions? >> one minute, please. >> i think what we see now is a bit of an abuse in terms of the number of vendors that the city has leased space to in our parks. and parks and recreation is for parks and recreation and not necessarily should be a place where we are leasing space to more vendors than we

particularly need in specific areas. there is a place for vendors, for food vendors for various vendors in certain areas of the parks, but i think we are focusing way too much time on trying to figure out how we generate revenue for the city more so than we are trying to figure out how to make sure that those uses are good uses for the people who use the parks . >> julian davis here. you know, i think we're seeing somewhat of a crisis in our parks and recreation department. i found that the department is severely mismanaged. we have synthetic fields going we have privatization and commercialization of our park spaces. we have rec directors being fired and park patrol officers being hired. we have onerous fees for access to community space, pricing

community events out of our park spaces. the question is about whether particular conditions and limits we would put, i will give you a little sense of what will guide me in terms of my values and look closely at community people and people from community to be able to have access to our parks and recreation facilities. so if we're leasing spaces we need to make sure that is not to the detriment of folks who should affordably be able to take advantage of our park spaces. we have arboretum fees and i think these kind of policies are creating a less accessible park system, so that will be my guiding principles when i craft limits on privatizing or leasing our park spaces. >> thank you. mr. resignato. >> i agree with what julian just said. i think one of the examples is really the concerts that we have in the parks that are excluding people. for example, i forget the name of it

actually. outside lands which cost over $100 a ticket and excludes a lot of people from being able to access the parks. when other concerts that the power of the people concert, which is much more a public and free isn't able to get a permit because it's too expensive. so i think our values have to be with us, especially in our public spaces, our values have to be to err on the side of allowing public entities access and maybe restricting some of the private entities or corporations or charging them more to access/to use our public spaces. that is my opinion. >> thank you. the next question is for miss johnson, mr. resignato and miss selby. measure f, which is on the ballot this november would

require san francisco to come up with a plan to drain the hetch hetchy reservoir and restore the hetch hetch valley to its natural state. please explain why you support or oppose measure f? miss johnson? >> yes. i think i'm one of the only candidates who supports measure f. it's not necessarily that you have to drain hetch hetchy. hetch hetchy is one of nine reservoirs. the city of san francisco is one of the only cities and, in fact the only city that did not respond to a survey of water recycling. the city will not do anything and they say they cannot recycle water for ten years, even though there is already best practices. so this study would find out ways that we can improve -- we used to get most of our water from the undergroundwater infrastructure, but that has not been maintained properly.

so we have been relying more and more on hetch hetchy, which was created by damming the tuolumne river, where we get our water. so it's a study to fund researching ways to improve our water system. >> it's interesting that hope and i get this question, because we just remailed on this topic about two hours ago and i have been trying to get more information, because we usually agree on a lot of things. i have opposed this measure, because i think it's -- at a time when we don't have a lot of funding, i think the spirit of the measure is in the right place, looking at some issues of water. one is what i'm concerned with is, i'm the only health go and it could be an issue for people with compromised immune systems. i think it's you agood point

and i was looking at the statistics today. the measure is very broad and outlines a lot of things that might be a little too ambitious right now and i think $8 million that the time is tough when we have a lot of other priorities. so that is why i have opposed it. i think the spirit of it is good, and we should start looking at that, but it's the particular measure that i don't agree with. thank you. >> thea selby. i also oppose measure f and the reason for that, there are a couple different reasons, but one is certainly not only do we have the world's finest water. i mean i don't know if you have lived in other places, but the water from the hetch hetchy is the most drinkable, most delicious water in the world. and i love my water. i don't want to lose my water. we do get some of it from the ground. we do use some groundwater and that will be increasing over time. that is something that i think

the sf puc is looking into. so certainly water itself is absolutely delicious, pure, pristine and fabulous and water is really the new oil. water is extremely important to us. but also it gives us energy. we have hydropower from our water source, a lot of city, if not all of the city is powered, sfmta, possibly the city buildings is powered by the hetch hetchy and i don't want to give that up either. >> thank you. i will remind the candidates that if at any point they wish to jump in on a question they may do so using a time card. the next question is for miss breed, mr. johnson and miss selby. please explain whether you

think sit/lie is working to address public safety as intended across the city and how you would reform it, if indeed you would reform it? miss breed? >> i did vote yes on sit/lie. i had a number of issues in the upper haight that were just really unfortunate situations and i thought there needed to be some sort of solution to the problem. unfortunately it hasn't worked. we still have some real problems in the haight and we need to make sure that the social service agencies that deal with mental health abuse issues, that deal with drug treatment issues, those particular organizations are on the front line helping the folks who need the help. and the people that are and sometimes what we perceive as the "problems of the haight," are the ones that need the services the most and we need to make sure that the services are where they are needed. and they are needed in the

haight and with sit-lie we just move the problem from one location to another. it's to look at the situation more seriously and address it the way we need to as a city. >> thank you. miss johnson? >> i do not support sit/lie and still do not support sit/lie. one of the main reasons i felt at the time it was a regissue that the two different factions that kind of operate in san francisco were using against each other. the progressives and the moderates. and i felt it was not really relevant to what was going on in the city at the time. it is an important issue up in the haight, but it hasn't really worked and it hasn't been imposed citywide, but just in the haight. everybody sort of moves down in the park and they had to put in bicycle racks to disperse that.

the sfpd has laws on the book that it could use if it wanted to and some of the issues that will come up are not going to go away. these people don't have anywhere to go. a lot of them have drug problems and we have cut services and that is a broader issue of where those people will go. >> thea selby, i also did not support sit/lie and for some of the same reasons. there are laws on the books that could take care of it. so i was concerned that if the chief of police moved on and lo and behold the chief of police moved on, there won't be the same will to do something if we had sit/lie and my ways of reforming -- i didn't think we needed laws. i thought what we needed is what we still need is community-building and getting people on the streets and activating the streets. i have been working with a group of other neighborhood people, and we have been

meeting about what are the ways that we can activate lake albert, where a lot of the people went? yes, we need social services and yes, there is probably a police element as well. i don't know if you have seen the report, but there is a report out there and certainly any place it's worked it has worked here the best of all the places. but nonetheless we have shifted the problem, not gotten rid of the problem. >> there are two other candidates who wish to jump in on this. >> as an attorney working in the criminal justice system here in san francisco i'm on the front lines of a lot of these issues, including mental health issues, homelessness issues and substance-abuse which is really at the subsidiary at this particular set of circumstances here. that being said, make no mistake about it, folks, the two other panelists were correct. excuse me, there is already

legislation on the books to address this problem. what the people wanted to do was send a message and i believe it was the wrong message. it's the message that san francisco is not an inclusive city, that it's not a tolerant city. yes we have public safety concerns. yes there are real issues out there, but there are better, more humane and more just and quite frankly more san francisco-centered ways to deal with those issues. >> mr. resignato. >> so i kind of also agree with what mr. everett just said. and we have deeper political/social issues to address. we come up with new laws with gang injunction and the idea of stop and frisk and we have laws on the books already, but what we need is that we need police presence. we need community programs and also we need new ideas. if you talk about the end of the park at stanon, what is going on there now, i have been

talking in the campaign because i think what is interesting is the idea of haight street museum. it's been tried before, but the haight street is an historical area and a museum really changing the way that area is and activating that area. i keep putting that out there, because that is something that i would propose as supervisor. >> thank you. mr. davis? >> the sit/lie law is a perfect example of trying to address a symptom without curing the disease. we have massive inequitis in our society. that is apparent from the number of homeless people that we see on our streets in san francisco and it's a problem that is not just a san francisco problem. it's a problem that is experienced statewide. it's a national problem. and i think we need leaders at city hall who will be willing to step up and work with our state and national leaders to try to solve the ple